MEDIAWATCH: Q&A Review: National have less credibility on housing than Labour!
National were always going to pull the plug on the urban intensification deal.
1 – Because Luxon u-turns on everything.
2 – Because it was Labour’s Professional Managerial Class who stitched the deal together and sold it on The Spinoff.
If it was National’s Professional Managerial Class who had stitched the urban intensification deal together it would stand, they didn’t so it won’t.
There Bish is on Q+A trying to clean up the mess of National’s u-turn and is pretending National somehow have some credibility on Housing.
Look, I’m the first to spit one Labour over their pathetic State House build and joke affordability, but National have way less credibility on Housing than Labour’s weak record.
The only reason Labour are having such problems with Housing is because of National’s total refusal to acknowledge a Housing crisis for 9 years in power!
The Bish of course claimed he had support from Tenancy Groups over National’s desire to give Landlords the right to throw people out onto the streets at will, turns out the Bish lied and no one could find any Tenancy Rights Group who told him giving Landlords the right to throw renters out onto the streets was good for renters!
The Bish then told everyone he understood the pain of being a renter because he was renter, the Bish was then asked if he was renting from a family, the Bish said no, and then it turned out he was renting from his in-laws and the Bish argued in-laws weren’t family.
National built the Housing crisis we are suffering from, they hate renters and are the political expression of Landlords. They have zero credibility on building houses, under Key they saw kids living in cars and threw state tenants out onto the street in the middle of a homelessness crisis using false meth tests that cost $100million!
Allowing National back into power to solve the legacy problems they created is like allowing an alcoholic to manage a bar!
National love landlords and hate renters, they are an arsonist begging to be a firefighter.
Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice – please donate here.
If you can’t contribute but want to help, please always feel free to share our blogs on social media
Which property developers are donors to the Tories only and not Labour? What do the Tory donors want vs. the Labour ones?
If the Tories cannot get away with selling off the state houses without a revolt, which private contractor will they hand Housing Department money to instead? Would Labour do the same thing?
I do wonder as to how many property developers that National will pander to will have the surnames of Chow and Key?
And if there is any intensification building in say Auckland will the NZ taxpayers money spent on say Kaingo Ora eventually find its way into a NZ National Party bank account with say ANZ????!!
It is a pity that the State as a landlord does not do a better job of throwing their bad tenants out .If they did then there my not be so much opposition to State houses in the suburbs. It is only a small percentage that are offensI’ve but they taint the way state tenants are regarded.
It is good that National has change its policy towards intensity housing and suggested the locals know best .It is just the same for water .It is interesting how quite Labour has gone on 3 Waters particularly since Mahuta has been sidelined.
The reality Martyn is that both are as inept as the other in the all important area of housing.
Property Investors and their free ride with obscene profits have been a huge part of the housing problem. Labour knew this and campaigned on a Capital Gains Tax. It was the main fix it solution in their tool box. Nek minute Winnie said NO and threatened a constitutional crisis if they pressed forward with it. Despite the importance of it and the level of respect they felt toward working group leader Dr Michael Cullen, the CGT was gone as was Cullen’s legacy.
So many of the changes put forward to help first home buyers over the last decade or so have had the opposite effect as numerous experts confidently stated they would. Property investors on the other hand creamed it just as experts also confidently predicted.
Jacinda was in a hopeless position. She wanted house prices to drop but didn’t want kiwi’s to lose equity in their home which is their biggest investment / asset.
Megan Woods is about as useful in the role of Housing Minister as a chocolate fireguard. I’m not even sure she’s an improvement and the totally inept Phil Twyford. Woods was so far out of her depth she went looking for help from Judith Collins of all people. The policy they came up with together was welcomed by property developers while home owners in working class areas embraced it like a huge wart on the end of their nose.
Will National put things right? They were absolutely correct when they adamantly stated while last in Government there was no housing crisis……..but context is everything. National Party politicians were having a field day with their significant housing investment portfolios as were property investors that invariably vote National. They were correct is saying there was no housing crisis……for them.
Christopher Luxon has numerous property investments. He was asked about just one of his investment properties. Luxon was blissfully unaware his equity on that investment property had increased the equivalent of thirsty three thousand dollars every week of every month of the year. This unfolded while most of NZ struggled from one week to the next.
Can Luxon relate to the majority of kiwis? Is he motivated to shoot himself in the foot along with many colleagues and an army of National Party supporters?
Whatever the two main parties tell voters about housing is best treated with the contempt it deserves.
Yes, TM, rhetoric is cheap. Affordable housing in desirable areas seems a unreachable goal now, unless a CGT on surplus housing is introduced to put an end to housing being treated as the #1 investment option. Tinkering around the edges with high density housing and freeing up greenfields won’t really solve the issue.
I am not disagreeing with anything you have said, but unfortunately, Megan Woods is actually our most successful Housing Minister this century. National built next to fuck all, just the homes that had already been rubber stamped by the previous administration. And Helen Clark built nowhere the needed amount, and concentrated on maintenance of the current housing stock.
So please, let us give Minister Woods the recognition she deserves. Even if it is a piss poor effort.
Its still option Shit or option Shitter.
Labour and National both have form when it comes to fucking up housing.
Bishop seemed to conflate the issue of affordable housing with the scarcity of social housing. Aren’t they quite different? It’s one thing to struggle to save the deposit and then have the means to committ to mortgage repayments on a modest income; it’s another to have a snow ball’s chance in hell of ever getting anywhere near a deposit, even say $50k, and to convince the bank you’re up to the mortgage repayments.
Doesn’t take peering deeply into a crystal ball to see how 7 Houses Luxon will address housing shortages/affordability.
Why has Luxon thrown Bishop and Willis under the bus on housing densification?
National also have less creditability when it comes to superannuation.
Modern state houses are actually better house s than what’s on the market for first home buyer peeps. So let d give ever First home buyer a kainga Ora house…and make the richest of the richest baby boomers pay for it
The market will not sort it out Johan, the market never sorted out our power prices as NZers we are still getting ripped of even after John key sold some of our power assets and Max Bradford said, ‘increased competition will drive down power prices’.
Ands in a speech to an Auckland business audience Key said National would campaign on partial sales of the three big energy generators and coal company Solid Energy in a bid to pay down Government debt a year earlier. Now what has this done?
I do like the idea of making councils set aside 30 years of development immediately. As long as the greenfields is matched with transport infrastructure.